Computer-assisted 3D preoperative planning software has the potential to improve postoperative stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Commonly, preoperative protocols simulate two functional positions (standing and relaxed sitting) but do not consider other common positions that may increase postoperative impingement and possible dislocation. This study investigates the feasibility of simulating commonly encountered positions, and positions with an increased risk of impingement, to lower postoperative impingement risk in a CT-based 3D model. A robotic arm-assisted arthroplasty planning platform was used to investigate 11 patient positions. Data from 43 primary THAs were used for simulation. Sacral slope was retrieved from patient preoperative imaging, while angles of hip flexion/extension, hip external/internal rotation, and hip abduction/adduction for tested positions were derived from literature or estimated with a biomechanical model. The hip was placed in the described positions, and if impingement was detected by the software, inspection of the impingement type was performed.Aims
Methods
In computer simulations, the shape of the range of motion (ROM) of a stem with a cylindrical neck design will be a perfect cone. However, many modern stems have rectangular/oval-shaped necks. We hypothesized that the rectangular/oval stem neck will affect the shape of the ROM and the prosthetic impingement. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) motion while standing and sitting was simulated using a MATLAB model (one stem with a cylindrical neck and one stem with a rectangular neck). The primary predictor was the geometry of the neck (cylindrical vs rectangular) and the main outcome was the shape of ROM based on the prosthetic impingement between the neck and the liner. The secondary outcome was the difference in the ROM provided by each neck geometry and the effect of the pelvic tilt on this ROM. Multiple regression was used to analyze the data.Aims
Methods
Optimal implant position is the important factor in the hip stability after THA. Both the acetabular and femoral implants are placed in anteversion. While most hip dislocations occur either in standing position or when the hip is flexed, preoperative hip anatomy and postoperative implants position are commonly measured in supine position with CT scan. The isolated and combined anteversions of femoral and acetabular components have been reported in the literature. The conclusions are questionable as the reference planes are not consistent: femoral anteversion is measured according to the distal femoral condyles plane (DFCP) and acetabulum orientation in the anterior pelvic plane (APP)). The EOS imaging system allows combined measurements for standing position in the “anatomical” reference plane or anterior pelvic plane (APP) or in the patient “functional” plane (PFP) defined as the horizontal plane passing through both femoral heads. The femoral anteversion can also be measured conventionally according to the DFCP. The objective of the study was to determine the preoperative and postoperative acetabular, femoral and combined hip anteversions, sacral slope, pelvic incidence and pelvic tilt in patients who undergo primary THA. The preoperative and postoperative 3D EOS images were assessed in 62 patients (66 hips). None of these patients had spine or lower extremity surgery other than THA surgery in between the 2 EOS assessments. None had dislocation within the follow up time period.Introduction
Material and Methods
Limb length discrepancy after THA can result in medicolegal litigation. It can create discomfort for the patient and potentially cause back pain or affect the longevity of the implant. Some patients tolerate the length inequality better compared to others despite difference in anatomical femoral length after surgery. We analyzed the 3D EOS images of 75 consecutive patients who underwent primary unilateral THA (27 men, 48 women). We measured the 3D length of the femur and tibia (anatomical length), the 3D global anatomical length (the sum of femur and tibia anatomical lengths), the 3D functional length (center of the femoral head to center of the ankle), femoral neck-shaft angle, hip-knee-ankle angle, knee flexum/recurvatum angle, sacral slopes and pelvic incidence. We correlated these parameters with the patient perception of the leg length.Introduction
Methods and materials
